In the News

The Sentinel's "Deconstructing Desal" series briefly mentions
Santa Barbara's foray into desal, yet omits the relevant points for
Santa Cruz residents preparing to vote on Measure P, the right to
vote on desal.

In 1992, Santa Barbara built the country's first publicly owned
seawater desal plant as the ultimate insurance policy against a
once-in-a-century drought. Although a feasibly study determined that
the 12 million gallons per day plant would not be used even if a
drought occurred similar to the worst on record (1951-1956).

After the $34 million plant completed start-up tests, rains
filled the reservoirs and robust conservation and best management
practices kicked in. Next, water rates were raised in response to
the plant's high construction costs and alternative supplies were
developed at half the price of desal.

The cost of keeping the facility on standby status was $775,000
annually. Subsequently, the "pioneering plant" was mothballed and
decommissioned at a cost of $772,000. Finally, the key components
were sold for 60 percent of the original sale price to a Saudi
Arabian company to raise revenue -- without a single drop of desal
water ever entering the system.

Even so, Santa Barbara residents continue to pay $100,000
annually to store the factory's carcass -- a boondoggle reminder of
no matter how great desal's promise, costs and changing
circumstances militate against achieving success. Today, it would
cost more than $18 million and take 18 months to reactivate the idle
plant from the time of approval of any required permits.

Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara share some important similarities:
university-resort towns economically and dependent on tourism,
education, service sector employment, and real estate. Santa
Barbara, however, has a larger population, a drier Mediterranean
climate, lacks a river and stream watershed and is not a national
marine sanctuary area.

Engineer Jerry Paul debunked the fear-mongering myth -- long
promulgated by officials -- that our region has a water shortage
problem in his May 6, 2012, Sentinel column "Putting desalination
into perspective." He states, "Our actual water problem is the lack
of infrastructure to store enough winter river water -- our major
source -- to boost the health of our fish populations and aquifers,
while seeing us comfortably through summers and occasional droughts.

Perhaps, the key lesson learned about pursuing elaborate desal
development is problems result when government officials -- without
a mandate from voters and ratepayers -- only follow a single water
policy track.

Currently, California's water districts are re-examining,
postponing or abandoning plans for seawater desal and are asking:
How much are we willing to pay environmentally and financially for
new water?

Santa Cruz's "expandable" regional desal locomotive left the
station on a fast track $14 million ago and without leaving the
community with a Plan B. Passing Measure P on Nov. 6 will enable
citizens and officials to work together to redirect money away from
the proposed $300 million desal plant system toward a set of less
costly and less damaging alternatives: stronger conservation, water
transfers, recycling and water neutral growth.

Paul Gratz is a longtime Santa Cruz resident and a retired health
educator and planner. He co-authored Measure P.